5.29 Reading Response

Texts:
Bawarshi & Rieff, Chapter 6: “Rhetorical Genre Studies”

One of the points that Bawarshi and Rieff make in this chapter is that rhetorical genre studies have claimed that genres are “dynamic rhetorical forms that develop from responses to recurrent situations and serve to stabilize experience and give it coherence and meaning” (79). So at the same time genres are dynamic but also help to stabilize. Although these seem to be complete opposites and may seem impossible, Bawarshi and Rieff comment that genres must accommodate both stability and change because variation is an inevitable part of recurrence and then cannot become obsolete (79). This makes me wonder what counts as change in this case because genres already seem so dynamic. Couldn’t change mean almost anything and wouldn’t that rule out the stability? How big does something have to be to change a genre? Can something small be influential? Can small changes prompt a change in genre or does it have to be big? Can it be just one even or does it have to be a variety of events or at least something consistent? Who decides or says that the genre has changed – who has the authority in this case? Or is the change just accepted by the community or does it even go barely recognized? Or can all of this happen and genre change is really just situational? Are there any rules for what changes genres or is it just a free for all? These questions just lead me to wonder how we identify a change in genre – what prompts it and what counts as a change and how is that recognized.

After discussing the different genre claims in RGS, Bawarshi and Rieff summarize by saying that genre is complex and dynamic, marked by both stability and change, serves as situated cognition, is connected to ideology, power and social actions and relations, and recursively enacts and reproduces community (82). What I find interesting is because genre can do all of these things; it seems very influential since it permeates so much and so many areas. Bawarshi and Rieff state that genres “do not function in isolation” but they also interact with a variety of things and other genres. So then I continue back to my questioning of genre change. If genres are interconnected to other genres and other elements/factors, how is it possible for them to change? Wouldn’t any change prompt a series of other changes? If it is so complex, does everything else have to change as well? Which has to change first? Or can they change in isolation with no other effects? Can one thing prompt change or is it something reciprocal? Because of all the elements involved, I think that the latter is more likely. However, then it seems like things would constantly be changing and that goes against the factor of stability that Bawarshi and Rieff discussed. It is a little confusing and although I know genres are “stabilized for now” how fine is that line between stable and changing?

Continuing on with my discussion of whether or not genre can be taught from yesterday’s post, Bawarshi and Rieff made a few additional points in this chapter. They say that because genre knowledge is a form of situated cognition, it can only be acquired over time (82). Furthermore, genres can’t be defined or taught just through their formal features because how we understand parts of the situation (object, outcomes, meditational means) and how we use them determines how we see them (103). Bawarshi and Rieff comment “genre knowledge is not fully activated or learned until the object/motives are acquired and become real for their users” (103). So unless the situation and its results are real, we won’t fully understand – formal knowledge is not enough (103). We need to be immersed in the genre and experience it for ourselves to really learn. I also thought their point on students feeling the authority being important in learning.

Just to touch on a few more points that I found interesting, I liked how Bawarshi and Rieff commented that subjectivity and identity were intertwined in genre knowledge and performance (104). I though this is very important because everybody brings something different to a situation – background knowledge, experience, perspective, etc. – so it seems that nothing can every really stay constant in terms of this subjectivity and identity. What we have individually definitely would influence what we know about genres and how we use them. I also like how meta-genres can help to smooth tensions between activity systems (101). This seems key since so many activity systems and genres overlap, there is bound to be a variety of contradictions. I also found the concept of uptake interesting to describe the complex ways genres relate to and take up other genres in activity systems (83).